The impeachment goat and pony show

[laylalex 7,263]

How does the Senate have the power to "throw out" the impeachment as unlawful? That's a serious question. Like, where in the Constitution or any federal law does it say the Senate can do that? Is there any case law on that? There's a difference between Mitch McConnell saying that he's not required to try the case in the Senate and "throwing out" the impeachment as "unlawful." Ultimately isn't it the role of the courts to say what is lawful and unlawful? How could a legislative body decide that? If that were the case, what has been the point of having to pursue the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the subpoenas served in the impeachment investigation? If that were the case, then the House could have said, yeah, they're lawful without the executive saying no, they're not.

 

Also, I thought the masses were supposed to have been lulled into inaction and complacency by a corrupt deep state, and yet they're going to be rioting when there's no trial? 

 

Sorry for so many questions, it's that kind of morning.

[Dashinka 23,390]

48 minutes ago, laylalex said:

How does the Senate have the power to "throw out" the impeachment as unlawful? That's a serious question. Like, where in the Constitution or any federal law does it say the Senate can do that? Is there any case law on that? There's a difference between Mitch McConnell saying that he's not required to try the case in the Senate and "throwing out" the impeachment as "unlawful." Ultimately isn't it the role of the courts to say what is lawful and unlawful? How could a legislative body decide that? If that were the case, what has been the point of having to pursue the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the subpoenas served in the impeachment investigation? If that were the case, then the House could have said, yeah, they're lawful without the executive saying no, they're not.

 

Also, I thought the masses were supposed to have been lulled into inaction and complacency by a corrupt deep state, and yet they're going to be rioting when there's no trial? 

 

Sorry for so many questions, it's that kind of morning.

Who said the Senate was going to throw it out as unlawful?  All they have to do is hold a trial, and vote.  Personally, I do not see the Dems getting two thirds to remove the President.  If I were advising McConnell, I would start a four week trial starting in early January to be wrapped up right after the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary.

[laylalex 7,263]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Who said the Senate was going to throw it out as unlawful?  All they have to do is hold a trial, and vote.  Personally, I do not see the Dems getting two thirds to remove the President.  If I were advising McConnell, I would start a four week trial starting in early January to be wrapped up right after the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary.

I was quoting the picture (meme?) on the other page. It shows this:

 

It says "Wait until the Senate throws out the impeachment as unlawful," right at the end.

 

I completely agree with the rest of your analysis btw.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, laylalex said:

I was quoting the picture (meme?) on the other page. It shows this:

 

It says "Wait until the Senate throws out the impeachment as unlawful," right at the end.

 

I completely agree with the rest of your analysis btw.  

The meme was just the shortcut to Trump's re-election in 2020.  Not the actual path to success.

[laylalex 7,263]

3 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

The meme was just the shortcut to Trump's re-election in 2020.  Not the actual path to success.

I haven't had enough to drink yet for that to make sense.

 

But the night is young. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

I haven't had enough to drink yet for that to make sense.

 

But the night is young. 

Trump.

 

2020.

 

5 more years.

 

Relax.

[laylalex 7,263]

There needs to be a "it only hurts when I laugh" reaction button, because that hurts.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 minutes ago, laylalex said:

There needs to be a "it only hurts when I laugh" reaction button, because that hurts.

It won't hurt as much as your friends have convinced you it will.  In fact, it might actually turn you into cream.

 

Yanno. As in... rising to the top?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Trump.

 

2020.

 

5 more years.

 

Relax.

5? No, no, no.. Trump forever!

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

ZOMG, this is just precious!! The dems have been salivating all over each other trying to impeach Trump. 

 

But NOW, they gave an article released by the NYT that indicates some.witnesses exist that will absolutely solidify the case against Trump!!  You just CANNOT make up stuff more schtoopid than what we are witnessing as it unfolds.  

 

Ok, Schoomer!!

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/devastating-blow-schumer-says-newly-unredacted-emails-show-why-senate-n1109641

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

ZOMG, this is just precious!! The dems have been salivating all over each other trying to impeach Trump. 

 

But NOW, they gave an article released by the NYT that indicates some.witnesses exist that will absolutely solidify the case against Trump!!  You just CANNOT make up stuff more schtoopid than what we are witnessing as it unfolds.  

 

Ok, Schoomer!!

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/devastating-blow-schumer-says-newly-unredacted-emails-show-why-senate-n1109641

It's been PR the entire way, wouldn't expect it to be any different here. Chucky and co have no control over the impeachment, and because the narrative is entirely what this is about, all he can do is stomp up and down while Pelosi holds the impeachment. Just like she tried to stall the impeachment from going forward for months, she's going to try and stall this moving to the Senate as long as possible, employ some more PR tactics like more sham House hearings. Her options for using the impeachment process for conjuring garbage are comically limited.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I thought it was a joke that they would try and stall until the election. Now it's seeming like a reality. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I wish the liberals I know and love could grasp what this really means.

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

31 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I thought it was a joke that they would try and stall until the election. Now it's seeming like a reality. 

I was expecting that of the impeachment process in the committees/floor. While the result isn't a surprise, the method they threw together on a whim was.

 

Clearly leftists know its a scam, but to reiterate, they don't care. They just want the orange man gone, and if it means using government processes like impeachment for anti-Trump PR (<- because they believe it will hurt Trump in 2020 elections), they're clearly on board. The implications and danger to the republic itself, simultaneously, irrelevant. Wrecking ball.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

On 12/31/2019 at 11:25 AM, laylalex said:

How does the Senate have the power to "throw out" the impeachment as unlawful? That's a serious question. Like, where in the Constitution or any federal law does it say the Senate can do that? Is there any case law on that? There's a difference between Mitch McConnell saying that he's not required to try the case in the Senate and "throwing out" the impeachment as "unlawful." Ultimately isn't it the role of the courts to say what is lawful and unlawful? How could a legislative body decide that? If that were the case, what has been the point of having to pursue the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the subpoenas served in the impeachment investigation? If that were the case, then the House could have said, yeah, they're lawful without the executive saying no, they're not.

 

Also, I thought the masses were supposed to have been lulled into inaction and complacency by a corrupt deep state, and yet they're going to be rioting when there's no trial? 

 

Sorry for so many questions, it's that kind of morning.

The only necessary rules about the Senate trial are in the Constitution. There's nowhere that says they can't do a motion to dismiss. This is what happens in a trial as well -- the Senators are the jury (the judges of guilt or innocence+managers of the trial). Outside the Constitution's rules, which are extremely few, the Senate makes all the other rules. Just like the House's impeachment sham was able to adopt the form it took under direction from Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, etc., the Senate trial can be equally biased, equally one-sided, at the behest of McConnell.

 

The issue of subpoena, however, is something that would, if seriously pursued+contested, need to be decided separately in a court. Generally, what actually plays out, is one or the other winds up giving in, without a ruling. Either people come on their own volition, or Congress doesn't bother trying to litigate. It's a balancing act, because Congress stands a chance of the Judiciary saying their subpoena means jack, making it entirely useless, or they could emphatically affirm it, tearing into the President's authority to be the President, meaning his cabinet, if not himself, could just be endlessly subpoena'd and the executive come to a grinding halt. Both sides, fearing losing power, pick their battles, not pursuing it all the way to the end (addressing the issue itself before a court). Naturally, the process that pits one representative branch against the other is done to facilitate conflict, and resolution.

 

How it would happen, I suspect, is McConnell would call up the impeachment articles to deliberate in the Senate, call a motion to dismiss. Democrats would object. John Roberts would initially favor the Democrats objection. McConnell would call a vote on it. The Senate would vote, and if a majority favor McConnell's motion, it would overrule Roberts. 

 

Whether or not he does that, who knows. We still don't even know if this matter will ever come before the Senate, because it's a joke to begin with. 😂

Edited January 3, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds